ArticleOecologia2022
The size dependency of foraging behaviour: an empirical test performed on aquatic amphipods.
Article in Oecologia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intrapopulation Metabolic Variation Reflects Growth Differences: A Cross-Sectional Study on Gammarides.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Shedding light on amphipod behaviour: Baseline locomotion behaviour for laboratory ecotoxicology experiments.PloS one · 2026Article
- Morphological crypsis within a crustacean species complex is driven by within-species phenotypic diversification.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Predator Size Structure Fails to Alter Nonconsumptive Effects in Streams.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- The relative importance of metabolic rate and body size to space use behavior in aquatic invertebrates.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Possible seasonal and diurnal modulation of Gammarus pulex (Crustacea, Amphipoda) drift by microsporidian parasites.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Metabolic rate and climate change across latitudes: evidence of mass-dependent responses in aquatic amphipods.The Journal of experimental biology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The behavioural choices made by foragers regarding the use of resource patches have a direct influence on the energy balance of the individual. Given that several individual traits linked to the acquisition of spatially distributed resources increase with body size (e.g., energy requirements, resource ingestion rates, and movement capacity), it is reasonable to expect size dependencies in overall foraging behaviour. In this study, we tested how body size influences the number, duration, and frequency of foraging episodes in heterogeneous resource patches. To this end, we performed microcosm experiments using the aquatic amphipod Gammarus insensibilis as a model organism. An experimental maze was used to simulate a habitat characterised by resource-rich, resource-poor, and empty patches under controlled conditions. The patch use behaviour of 40 differently sized specimens foraging alone in the experimental maze was monitored via an advanced camera setup. Overall, we observed that individual body size exerted a major influence on the use of resource patches over time. Larger individuals had stronger preference for the resource-rich patches initially and visited them more frequently than smaller individuals, but for shorter periods of time. However, larger individuals subsequently decreased their use of resource-rich patches in favour of resource-poor patches, while smaller individuals continued to prefer resource-rich patches for the whole experimental time. With body size being a key organismal trait, our observations support the general understanding of foraging behaviours related to preference, patch use, and abandonment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.